Kerry Points Out the Obvious

(I am not stating that as a bad thing at all)

In this NYT article, Kerry is reported to have used the now familiar phrase "character assassination" as the method of choice the White House has been using to discredit its detractors.

I agree. The Bushies' admonishing of critics seems -- by any reasonable account -- to begin and end with attacks upon the persons' rectitude rather than addressing the substance of their concerns.

Here's Kerry:

"Every time somebody comes up and says something that this White House doesn't like, they don't answer the questions about it or show you the truth about it, they go into character-assassination mode."

A bit more:

"I don't think people want questions about character. I think they want questions about our security to be answered."

He's not just talking about Richard A. Clarke. He also mentions former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and Medicare actuary Richard Foster.

I would lengthen the list to include other persons, but Kerry's point is taken.

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that this is not a peculiar affliction of the Bush administration, but they do seem to engage in personal attacks to a much higher degree than other recent White House administrations.

Character assassination is the weapon of choice when you have nothing else to use as fodder for your refutations.

Bush has only his character to run an election campaign on, as his policies are not in the best interests of the citizenry. It would be more accurate to state that Bush is running his campaign on keeping the populace fearful, and that he is most capable of keeping the people safe.

In this context that reasons for the vicious character attacks are clear. If assaults on Bush's character are successful, he is left with very little in the way of arguing that he is worthy of another four years as head of state.